Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 3

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)

3 September 2006

Template:User ipa-0

Babel box which was deleted following a TfD, restored following user request because the template was never tagged to indicate it was being considered for deletion in the first place, and then deleted again by the admin who originally nominated it for deletion. This template is still in use on many user pages because it was not 'orphaned' following deletion. The general argument for keeping it seems to be that 'IPA' notation gets used often enough on enWp (as opposed to say, Cyrillic) that there is value in stating that the user is unfamiliar with it. I don't think there is any question that the template not being tagged constitutes a lapse in process (though unintentional) and think this should be restored or at least replaced for the users who are still linking to it... though WP:GUS doesn't usually apply to Babel boxes. --CBD 22:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• comment- I don't have a problem with restoration as long as the template is modified to get rid of the category it produces. A giant category of people who don't know how do do something is useless to the encyclopedia and pointless for serach purposes. pschemp | talk 22:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - "I don't understand" or "I don't know" userboxes are rather useless. If we had 'em for each language each user could put another 200 userboxes on their page. The vast majority of people already don't understand IPA; there's no reason someone needs to be able to proclaim their ignorance in this subject area. --Cyde Weys 23:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

  "I don't know" userboxes aren't daft for languages. I use ang0, becasue I want to display my ignorance, but desire to learn. Maybe the same applies to ipa0. Rich Farmbrough, 11:45 4 September 2006 (GMT).

• Then can't it at least be subst:'ed as CBD suggests as is common with deleted userboxes of any kind? - Mgm|^(talk) 07:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete IPA is widely used on wikipedia to describe pronunciations, and the fact that people don't know how to read IPA, especially if they are in the field of language, is quite relevant. If you have a template such as "This user enjoys/has a degree in linguistics," it may be assumed that they know the IPA. But if you put this template below the first one, it helps clarify things and less editors will flock to your talkpage asking for help with transcriptions. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 13:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete It took me quite awhile to learn IPA, and I have sympathy for those who find it similarly difficult and wish to express as much on their pages. As a Babel box, this belongs in template space, so I favor restoring; but, I'll userfy if nothing else. Xoloz 14:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Babel boxes do belong in template space -they indicate the relevant skills that wikipedia might call upon. However, '0' babel-boxes as they are not helpful and tend to be humerous or polemical - so should be userfied per GUS. Telling me you don't speak polish isn't helpful - most wikipedians don't speak quite a few thousand languages. However, I suppose an argument can be made why this particular case is different, so I'll abstain but without setting any precedent for retaining any other '0' boxes in tamplate space.--Doc 22:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn TfD, undelete template As I read the nomination, the order was 1) TfD without notice on the template, 2) recreation and 3) redeletion. Step #1 is a process violation so the TfD result is invalid. With an invalid TfD, the subsequent redeletion that references the TFD is also invalid. As the TfD was a group TfD, we should probably check if the notice was put on all the other templates and restore any that didn't have the notice applied. GRBerry 01:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• This DRV is being run on procedural grounds, if I understand the objection is that there wasn't a notice in the box itself? The original consensus was nevertheless to delete. That particular procedural ground seems weak to me. I won't recapitulate the valid arguments for deletion, as this isn't TfD, and others already have. I'll merely endorse the close. Keep deleted ++Lar: t/c 11:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Relist TfD notices on the templates have a purpose, they alert editors who don't patrol WP:TfD that a template they use/worked on might get deleted. No opinion on the boxes themselves, although I would caution not to assume bad faith motives for adding them to one's user page. ~ trialsanderrors 19:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist per trialsanderrors in every dimension. -- nae'blis 15:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. The template has its uses, just as any other babel-0 box does. A "user bicycle-0" template would most definitely be useless for Wikipedia's purposes (although it might still benefit the "community-building efforts"), but "IPA-0" proclaims that an editor does not have a skill that may actually be expected of him/her based on that editor's edit history. The scope is rather limited, but the template is not useless.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse delete I don't believe "0" bable boxes are needed, and there were 14 templates under that deletion. If nobody who had any of the 14 templates on their page gave any comments, I believe the delete is valid. Unless of corse none of them had the TFD template on them, then my vote would be to overturn and relist. -Royalguard11(Talk)(Desk) 01:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Dennis Bathory-Kitsz

Courtesy listing following this appeal on my talk page, which states: "Mr. Bathory-Kitsz is one of the most active contributors to the scene of contemporary and electroacoustic music. His contributions are always followed with interest and he has gained a considerable reputation in the field. I kindly ask you to put the article back to Wikipedia." The article was deleted after AfD. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Restore to user space for expansion. Dennis does meet notability in my humble opinion. I'm unsure how exactly the voters arrived at their decisions, but he gets ten .... thousand... google hits, which certainly exceeds in the case of "composers" which aren't exactly "popular music". They don't generally have fan sites and so on. So ten thousand should be sufficient. Wjhonson 18:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted until such time as independent third party sources are provided. the maltedmedia site is not impartial, and neither are links to his publisher and his recording company. Are there any reviews published in well-known media outlets? I find none in the first few Google pages. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - So with ten thousand google hits, you're unable to find any reliable sources? Wjhonson 00:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The onus is not on me to do so. It's on those who want the article undeleted. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion userfy for expansion on request . Valid AfD, but opinion might turn if this is properly sourced (mirror here). ~ trialsanderrors 18:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per above. - Mailer Diablo 18:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The subject made his own case for notability here. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Again, maltedmedia.com is not a reliable source. Nor is the subject's own personal website. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Actually personal websites *may* be used on the article about the subject. But Dennis is widely enough known that there are many sites for verifiability of the most salient facts. Wjhonson 04:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Reply: Per the extensive commentary on self-published sources as reliable sources, personal websites may be used to confirm non-controversial and supporting points about the background of a person. The example commonly used is hair color. A personal website alone is never enough to support a controversial question and can never be the sole basis for a neutral, independent encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Restore. This was a typical depressing AfD pile-on. Note that he was quoted by the New York Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/28/national/28vermont.html?ex=1259384400&en=e887594a53fb1a1c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt in his capacity as executive director of the Vermont Alliance of Independent Country Stores. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 15:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: That article confirms the existence of Mr Bathory-Kitsz but is not about him. The story describes him in passing as the leader of a 2-year old local organization of 55 small store owners. I've presided over larger groups than that and I'm certainly not notable. This does not really qualify under the "independent media coverage" criterion of WP:BIO. Do you have a more definitive source? Rossami (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn. It's a rare day in May I vote to overturn a deletion, but this guy is notable. He ran this show: "Kalvos and Damian's New Music Bazaar" which ran on WGDR radio in the northeast US for ten years, and featured different new music composers all the time (visit the site, [1], and see his name at the top). Google "Kalvos and Damian" to find him. He was one of the top promoters of new "non-pop" music in the U.S. (as he called it) for a long time, until he had to close down the show last year. Sorry I missed the original AFD; hard to keep track of everything going on around here. Antandrus (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• From [2]:

Hi again, I have been following the deletion discussion. Since there seems to be a reluctance to do any homework on the part of some editors, may I offer the following assortment of links that are *not* to my own sites, but give a flavor of my 40-year career. They include reviews, books, awards, repertoire, etc. I'm afraid many other articles will require a physical library search, and finding my older books is difficult, but they're still listed on Amazon: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]

Feature articles not available online include:

• Trenton's Avant-Gardian Angel, Princeton Spectrum, May 1978
• king the Music Scene: Our Top 40, New Jersey Monthly, November 1977
• Co-Author, Composing a New Language, Southern Medical Journal, 85:2, 1993

I apologize if I seem picky. I'm no longer interested in deletion or restoration, but merely to avoid the slander in the Wikipedia discussion, i.e., that my sites and my resume are lying. I hope this clears my name with the Wikipedia editors. Questions, please email me. Unlike the anonymous editors, my name and address are public and available.

Dennis Bathory-Kitsz

[email protected] --72.237.57.86 04:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Please don't take it personally. No one has accused you or your site of lying. On the other hand, we can't trust anyone's personal website, blog, etc. In order to hold ourselves out as a reputable encyclopedia, we have to live up to certain standards of verification and must depend on reliable sources to do so. Self-published information, by definition, fails to meet established standards of independence and verification which are traditionally required of encyclopedias. Likewise, you say that your name and address are available, but your contributions to Wikipedia are pseudonymous. The rest of us have no functional way to tell whether the edit made above was really by you or by someone impersonating you. This is an inherent limitation of Wikipedia. The relevant policy pages can give you much more detail on this topic. And welcome to Wikipedia. Rossami (talk)

Comment - Which is why he went ahead and posted all those links to sites that aren't under his control in any way. Btw it isn't strictly true that self-published material is unusable, rather its usable in certain regards. One of those being "What does X say about Y" on "Xs" own article site. We can quote his self-published material, citing him as the source. In general, self-published material can only be used on articles directly about the source or the sources work. However self-published material by an expert in their field, can be used, on other articles, not just those about the author or the authors work. Wjhonson 05:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)